The ‘Gay Rights’ Community’s Jihad Against Stacy Trasancos

Earlier, I wrote about The ‘Gay Rights’ Community’s Jihad Against Rick Santorum. The ‘jihad’ comment was rather a joking matter that allowed me to describe the main point which is Rick Santorum’s defense of Natural Law. Political candidates should be given leeway on the use of hyperbole and also should expect to be at the red hot center of verbal attacks from opponents. In my report today, however, the jihadist activity of ‘gay rights’ activists is not a joking matter at all. It is very real.

My friend Stacy Trasancos, a fellow Catholic mom who is concerned about the world her children have to grow up in, is under attack from the ‘gay rights’ community for daring to writewhat she thinks about public displays of affection. She’s received death threats, which she has reported to law enforcement, and is naturally questioning whether or not she should continue to simply speak publicly about her beliefs.

I believe it is important at this time for the Catholic blogosphere to come to her aid by offering support in the form of encouragement and in the form of condemning the tactics of the ‘gay rights’ movement against people of faith who simply would like to take their kids to the park without having to risk exposure to depravity, not to mention who would simply like to write what they think about things on a blog.

It’s time to stand in defense of our sister Stacy Trasancos. Read: You duped me, O Lord…and leave a note of encouragement.

Thank you.

UPDATE: I recommend we all turn to the Blessed Mother for help and not to engage in fruitless arguments, but only mature and serious discussion on this important subject.

Having read her poisonous blog, it is clear that she ISN’T being attacked, but she is having her medieval beliefs questioned. Her blog shows her to be an odious woman who would rather blame gay people, than take responsibility for teaching her children that we exist. As for death threats, I don’t know whether this is true or not, but it is clear she has a persecution complex which is often too familiar with those of a religious nature, which have never know true persecution (and are often the instigators of it, rather than the true victims).

Persecution complex? The homosexual community acts like the mere existence of active Christianity means they might be executed for being homosexual (fat chance), when in the Islamic world, that’s actually happening.

Well we all know the churches history of execution, don’t we?! Not just homosexuals, non-believers, witches, whoever took the fancy of these blood-thirsty cults. You see homosexuals were persecuted in the past ; it is getting better thankfully, but not as quick as we would like. So now you show Islam to be doing what your religion once did. Woop de doo. Religions are much of a muchness – rotten to the core!

If it weren’t for Christianity, you wouldn’t have a rich body of art, science, technology, music, and literature. But people of your ilk are also busy destroying much of that. You hate anything that is true, good or beautiful, that raises humanity out of the depths.

It was not too long ago that gay people were actively persecuted in the western world, for example the case of the war hero and genius, Alan Turing. Even today gay people are not allowed to enter into a marriage agreement with a consenting, adult, partner whom they love. (Not mentioning the many cases of LGBT teens driven to suicide.) I of course realize that an institution such as the Catholic Church has the right to say whatever it wishes and to marry or not marry whomever it wishes, but that does not mean that the state policy should be the same as the Catholic policy.

To everyone that agrees with Stacy’s original article, why do you think homosexual actions are immoral? On what grounds do you object to their behavior?

I wish the Catholic Church would stop focusing so much on the issues of homosexuality and work on fixing the problems so rampant in it’s own community. Corruption and molestation of children is still going on. Can you explain to me how being gay is worse then any of these things? At least gay people are not out there hurting children or making the lives of other people miserable.

I’m new here so it might not be my place, but I think it might benefit everyone if the climate were less hostile. I don’t think anyone can reasonabley say that religion is “rotten to the core” or that anyone “hates everything that is good, true, and beautiful.” I also think that words like “jihad” should be saved for when one is talking about an actual jihad.

@ MatthewJLB
We’d probably have much more without Christianity. Let’s not forget about the years that this cult thwarted society in its pursuits, especially in terms of science and technology. Let’s not be under the misapprehension that your cult is either good/beautiful/true. In fact it hasn’t raised humanity out of the depths, but pushed them down. Never mind, it won’t have chance to do that for much longer ….

@ Colin Gormley,
If you wish to see the extent of how awful people are, then feel free to read the hateful, intolerant article written by Stacy Transacos and her distaste for homosexuals. You could also read the bible, which is equally as hateful too. Fill you boots.

“I wish the Catholic Church would stop focusing so much on the issues of homosexuality”.

Funny how the homosexuals want to make everyone accept their immoral lifestyle and then claim we are focused on homosexuality. When you all try to subvert the will of the people through the courts by making up a “right” to be married, whom is the one forcing the (non)issue?

As Catholics, we rely on the guidance of the Catholic Church to understand what is immoral and what is not immoral. The Catholic Church’s teaching has always been very clear on this issue. Just review the Catholic catechism. It’s available online. It’s not a debatable point.

I don’t recognize a “gay life style”, I recognize how sad it is that a human being, who is made in the image of Christ, reduces themselves to an unnatural sexual activity that brings only pain and suffering to themselves.

Tito, I believe gay people have the right to be equal to everyone else. What is wrong with wanting to marry, visit loved ones in the hospital and share their lives together like everyone else? That is not asking for special treatment… Just asking to be treated equally.

Yes, that is the organ’s evolutionary function, but it seems odd to place any ethical significance on that fact. Evolution selects for higher survival rates not a higher degree of ethical worth. But I suppose you most likely meant that God created the organs with a proper function. I suppose using them in an improper way would constitute immoral behavior under such an ethical system. Then again, God could have created the organs with dual purposes, pleasure and procreation. Isn’t it at least conceivable that some people are called to use their organs for both purposes, some called to use them in a loving relationship, and some called to sacrifice pleasure and procreation (the clergy)? Even if that is inconceivable or deeply misguided thinking, you’d still need to demonstrate your meta-ethical and normative theory to be correct in order to persuade me, or any other supporter of the Gay community, that the life style should be discouraged.

As for the statistics,they are troubling. However there isn’t really any ethical reason to take those into account beyond concerns of personal safety and that of your partner. I suppose that give you strong ethical reasons to practice safe sex, and regularly schedule STD and HIV tests.

From his last comment over at the most recent post at Accepting Abundance, it appears that GayAtheist fantasizes about religious eliminationism. Makes his florid adjectives about others’ hatred all the more grimly ironic. A bleak laugh, if nothing else.

I understand that it is not debatable within the Catholic Community, however this issue is not just one faced by the Catholic Community. Saying that it is Catholic doctrine is going to be meaningless to anyone who is not Catholic. In order to persuade and advocate it beyond one’s community one would need independent facts agreeable to all sides. If independent reasons against the gay lifestyle cannot be presented then it is merely a position of the Catholic Church and should not be advocated within the public sphere, it is solely a private matter.

Your claims of homosexuality’s immorality need to be justified beyond “review the Catholic catechism.” An argument from authority is not sufficient when the person(s) with whom you are arguing dispute the validity of the authority’s opinion.

It’s unclear what kind of argument you’re looking for in regards to homosexual activity.

On the one hand, you seem to be looking for some sort of a utilitarian argument — wanting to know what harm same sex relations cause. On the other hand, you argue that what harms are pointed out are merely cause for caution rather than for avoidance.

It seems to me that if you wanted to have a genuine debate on the topic, it would be important to be clear on several distinctions:

– What sort of evidence or arguments would you take as having “moral” weight?
– Are you questioning why people can be against “gay marriage” or more broadly why they can be against homosexual activity at all?
– What do you consider the sort of beliefs or motivations one may bring to the public square?

If, on the other hand, you simply want to make it clear that you personally disagree with the Catholic position on the topic, I think you have achieved that and may move on with a warm glow.

For the moment I’m talking about homosexual behavior in general. What I would require is either a utilitarian justification or a sound argument for some sort of divine command or natural law theory. Furthermore, my response to Tito was entirely consistent with my position. I see no good reason to advocate completely avoidance if precaution will achieve a similar effect. Furthermore, if both partners have a strong interest in the relationship then it is hard to see what other interests could be ethically relevant.

Timothy, the question was on what grounds do we say the homosexual lifestyle is immoral. The answer to the question is that our Catholicism is the grounds for it. You don’t have to be Catholic. We’re Catholic. That is our “grounds” for saying the homosexual “lifestyle” is immoral. We will still be Catholic tomorrow, and the next day, and the day after that….and forever.

The Catholic Church has been around for two millenia. The Church is indestructable.

What, exactly, is a “sound argument for a divine command”? Does that mean you want us to rehash Augustine and Aquinas for you? Catholics have been using reason and rational thought to back up divine law for thousands of years, and you want us to spoon feed it to you right now on a blog?

Last time I looked, the homosexual “lifestyle” is neither more nor less immoral than the heterosexual fornicating and/or contraceptive “lifestyle,” the usurious “lifestyle,” etc. The sheer revulsion at one kind of sin as compared with others–as expressed by Graas and Trasancos–suggests to me that there is something more (or less) than theology motivating these views.

I think, but I’m not sure, that Philo12 was referring to “divine command theory” — though if that’s the case I’m not really sure how one would make a strong argument using it against homosexual activity based on it since divine command theory is the view that saying “X is good” is identical to saying “God commands X” and vise verse. It’s not an area I’m strong on, so I could be wrong.

Philo12,

I don’t think that you can get to moral conclusions from utilitarian arguments, and I’m not clear how one could make an argument from divine command theory, so I’ll take a basic shot at arguing from a natural law point of view.

The natural law theory explanation would be that human sexual organs exist “for” coupling between a man and a woman — the act which is capable of, under the right circumstances perpetuating the species.

Typical rejoiners to this would be:

1) Then how can your priests be celibate?
2) Isn’t sex also good for pleasure and unity, regardless of procreation?

To 1) I would respond that not using a faculty is not the same thing as using it for something else. I fast on certain days of the year, and I wouldn’t say that means I’m using my mouth and stomach for something other than what they’re for. However, if I tried to eat in shoving food up my nose, I would arguably be misusing my nose.

To 2) I would respond that it is true that sex (under the right conditions) provides feelings of unity and pleasure and that there are indeed goods. However, I would hold that separating them totally from the context they are attached to is to break up the meaning of sexuality. (This is why Catholics also consider porn, masturbation and contraception to be immoral.)

Another typical response to a natural law argument for sexual morality is to argue “from nature” and point out that various animal species engage in same sex coupling, and that there may be evolutionary advantages to there being some percentage of the population that are same sex attracted.

I would respond to this that there are many actions which are seen in nature (rape and murder are easy examples) which we would not under any circumstances consider moral, even if they they are evolutionarily adaptive.

This is good, perhaps, as far as it goes, but in my experience someone without an actual religious reason for being against homosexual activity (or a strong cultural taboo) will tend to say, “This seems like a pretty small reason for saying that a percentage of the population can’t fulfill their deepest romantic desires.”

I would basically agree with that. I don’t think that many people who do not have a religious reason for believing that there is a greater meaning to how we function and what we, as persons, are intended for would find the above argument to be a reason to live differently than they might otherwise want to. On the other hand, that’s the case with just about any moral argument. And I think it underlines the extent to which even when people talk about “leaving religion out of the public square” it is in fact people’s beliefs rather than their arguments which are usually at play.

WJ, again, we are Catholic. Catholic teaching is clear on this and always has been. Catholics exist in the world and always will. You may as well tolerate that we do believe this…and we know how to blog, too. Even if you kill us, you can’t stop us from believing what we believe, so threats of death are pointless.

Although it’s not exclusive to Philo12, if I could paraphrase his position, what he is saying is, I won’t entertain any arguments that take a non-utilitarian approach. If you can’t demonstrate to me that X causes Y rate of substance abuse in teens or Z amount of hair loss, preferably in a peer reviewed journal, then I won’t even consider it as an argument. I get to define the terms of the debate, and I’m circumscribing “immoral” to mean “that which is bad for your dental health” or some other (horrifically impoverished) sense of the Good.

But this is exactly what frustrates religious people in America: It effectively cuts off at the knees most of what we believe, cherish, and hold dear. There is no such thing as “spirit” – banish that from your talk! There is no such thing as a “soul” – you’re not allowed to mention that! There is no use bringing what is true, good, or beautiful to the public sphere, because we stopped believing in truth, goodness, and beauty a long time ago. (They’ve been deconstructed quite effectively, thank you very much, grad school.) Out with the fairy tales, in with the brave new world.

If an act is immoral disgust is an appropriate response. Your own hatred of Stacy’s opinions seems to me that you would agree with this. You have subverted morality to suit your own interests. So you calling Christian hate-filled is operating from a definiton that Catholics don’t share. Calling each other immoral is kinda pointless when we are not operating in the same moral sphere.

The most sophisticated natural law argument against non-reproductive-type sexual activity is probably that made by John Finnis in various publications. I’m not going to go through all the reconstructions here. In any case, I don’t think that you’ll find those arguments persuasive, but there you go. I myself don’t think that it’s likely that one can argue successfully for Christian chastity on the basis of reason alone, even if those arguments are in the end sound. One thing that it is important to remember is the following: from a Catholic standpoint, there is no essential difference between, say, contraceptive sex between a married couple, fellatio, and anal sex (either homo or heterosexual); all these activities are morally problematic for the same reason. Here Catholics tend to be at least more consistent (if from your standpoint perhaps more consistently ludicrous) than Protestants, who often denounce the gay “lifestyle” without pausing to consider whether contraception is not the same type of act.

Thank you for telling me that “threats of death are pointless.” I’m not sure why you write this, but I am happy to agree with you. I think you misunderstood the point of my comment. Of course homosexual acts are immoral. But so are many other kinds of acts that are committed much more frequently (in public!) and yet these other kinds of acts don’t attract the kind of demonization that is usually reserved for homosexual acts. This suggests to me that something other than theology is at work here.

But this is exactly what frustrates religious people in America: It effectively cuts off at the knees most of what we believe, cherish, and hold dear.

Not just that, but utilitarian arguments can’t get you to any real concept of “good” in a universal sense. At most they can get you to “desirable” in some particular person or groups sense — sometimes magically universalized as if what one desires is the only rational thing one could desire.

When all we can argue about is what is desirable, we get into a state where conflict is strictly a matter of one group trying to enforce its will over another. Triumph of the will didn’t turn out to be a comfortable way to run societies for anyone, that I recall.

suggests to me that there is something more (or less) than theology motivating these views.

And there’s nothing wrong with that, WJ, if in fact it is the political reality that’s facing Christianity in this particular time and place. I’m not sure I buy your “all sins are equal” take, but I do know that there’s a push-pull effect, and that when certain issues become magnified in the public sphere, it is perfectly reasonable to assume that Christians will be forced to react to them.

@GayAtheist, you claimed, “We’d probably have much more without Christianity.”

Actually, the fruits of atheism are apparent: 100+ million deaths when you just focus on communism, ugly architecture, ugly art, ugly music, and even in the area of science/technology, we have the ugliness of the abuse of these fields to further your anti-human agenda.

For the record, I don’t think that “all sins are equal.” I think that homosexual acts are wrong for the same reason that all non-reproductive-type sexual acts are wrong. I also think that many kinds of sin are more grave than sexual ones. In both these beliefs I am perfectly orthodox.

The so-called “gay rights” thing is just a bunch of spoiled boys and girls throwing a temper tantrum in an effort to get something to legally gratify a perversion that all past sane societies reguarded as an abomination. We, the normal, need to start fighting back by holding it up to ridicule, reinstating all laws against sodomy, and shunning anybody who dares to flaunt his/her ‘GAYNESS’ once it becomes known. If we don’t, two things might happen. One, these disordered people will run riot over us, and completely destroy our society. Two, if the moral law is not reinstated, the decent people, to protect themselves and their families, will start taking the law into their own hands. People in the military won’t want to serve with the sodomites either. Many straights will figure out a way to get the gay out, and I guarantee it won’t be pleasant. Yep, the soddies will win a temporary victory, but when the backlash comes, all of them are going to wish they have stayed in the closet.

“Plato provides numerous condemnations of homosexual intercourse. See Laws 636c, where Plato speaking through the Athenian stranger rejects homosexual behavior as “unnatural” (para physin), describes it as an “enormity” or “crime” (tolmema), and explains that it derives from being enslaved to pleasure.”

And, additional to an above comment:

“In an affidavit, Finnis contended that, despite an upper-class ideology of same-sex (and specifically man-boy) “romantic relationships,” the public morality of Athens in the fourth century Before Christ treated sexual conduct between males as involving at least one of the parties in something shameful, unnatural, and wrong. Finnis argued that Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle regarded homosexual conduct as shameful and immoral. He set forth what he considered to be a central insight of these philosophers, as of other thinkers unaffected by Christianity (notably the Roman Stoic Musonius Rufus and Plutarch), that homosexual and other nonmarital sex acts are incapable of participating in, actualizing, or truly expressing the intimacy and good of friendship.

“The judgments of classical authors, particularly Plato, Socrates, and Aristotle, support opposition to regularized sodomy. These writers were committed to reasoned analysis of moral questions and were untouched by Christianity or Judaism that shape our religious commitments. They argued against and condemned sodomy on a rational basis.”

This post is not about whether or not homosexual acts are immoral. It’s about whether or not the “gay rights” community needs to be called out for issuing death threats against Catholic bloggers who write about what they think on these issues.

That is a very unhealthy position to hold in this day and age. How would you feel if you were forced to stay in the closet and fear for your life just because of your religious beliefs? Gay people have been doing this for centuries now. Many have been killed just for choosing to love in a different way then you find “normal.” Gay people just really wish you would stop looking at them as sub-human…Which is what you seem to be doing here.

I wish you peace and understanding in your future. I hope you can overcome this close minded way of thinking.

I have received a number of death threats over the internet from people who claimed to be loving Christians. I think every side has immature folks that need to be ignored.

For those who are new to the blog, I would note that I am one of the editors of the blog. I am also an attorney with 29 years in private practice. During that time I have practiced a fair amount of criminal law both as a defense attorney and a special prosecutor apppointed by the court in my jurisdiction. Death threats are a very serious criminal offense. Feel free to speak your minds on the subject in this thread, but if anyone decides to begin issuing death threats, I can guarantee you that it will be reported to the authorities. No one has done so in this thread yet, and I assume that no one has any intention of doing so, but I just wanted to make this blog’s policy in regard to death threats extremely clear for all.

No one should threaten death against another human being. It is usually just people hiding behind a computer and deciding to try and act tough. Though it should be reported! This I agree with. No

The people that scare me the most are the ones who bomb abortion clinics or when people decide that being gay makes you inferior. I had a friend growing up who was beat hard enough to have an extended stay in the hospital by his Catholic father because he decided to come out of the closet.

I wish people would just learn to accept others for who they are and stop listening blindly to what others tell them. Do your own research into what you are being told. Read the bible on your own, read Dawkins, read other religious text. Then you can come up with your own ideals when it comes to life and how to live it.

I am trying to come off as a bigot or mean here… I just wish that we as a civilization can come to terms with the fact that not everyone is going to adhere to the same beliefs and trying to impose them on the rest of the world is never going to end well. A secular society where beliefs are kept private among family and friends is the best way to go in my opinion.

Just an FYI Ryan, but adding smiley faces at the end of your paragraphs doesn’t make your arguments more convincing. I find it rather unsurprising that you fear people who bomb abortion clinics – because, you know, that’s an every day occurrence – but you don’t really fear the people going into the abortion clinics and murdering their unborn children. If only they merited as much mindless drivel from you about compassion.

Wait though, if Stacy Trasancos is a true Christian, then she of course is familiar with 1 Timothy 2:12 that says “I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent.”

If she were truly a God fearing woman, she would know her place and stop trying to teach gay men to not show affection in public. Homosexuality may be wrong, but for Stacy to try to tell gay men that it is wrong is an even bigger sin!!!

@ Wild Rumpus: To build on Stacy’s comment — you might have noticed that St. Paul uses the vertical pronoun, not ascribing it to the Holy Spirit or stating it impersonally. There are traditional and Scriptural arguments against women in the priesthood, and they’re much better than your proof text.

“I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent.”

From that out of context citation of Saint Paul, WR, I can conclude three things:

1. You have never been married to a Catholic woman.

2. You were not taught by nuns.

3. You have never attended a parish council meeting.

Sheesh! If you are going to come to a Catholic web site and comment, at least know your target audience. Catholics are not fundamentalists. We have a 2000 year history of interpreting scripture and 2000 years of Church teaching, much of it based on some of the finest human intellects to ever walk the globe. What may have impact on someone who gets their theology from the 700 club will have zero impact on Catholics.

The Trasancos haters really think they’ve smacked a dinger with that 1 Timothy reference, don’t they? Someone actually broke out the shrimp argument, too. Some wit also disinterred the “God’s the biggest abortionist” trope. A veritable parade of moldy oldies.

I will say this, though: I think she overreacted to the PDAs involved–I don’t see where there would have been anything to explain, really. But, the avalanche of hate dropped on her for her post is…wow. Totally disproportionate to what she said. It’s not like she made her flinch the gay couples’ problem–she just vented on her blog. And for that, a rage storm that is nothing short of horrific. I know internet haters aren’t necessarily representative of a cultural subset, but still–it’s the motivated that drive the fights.

Yeah, there’s a culture war all right. I hope and pray the national fever breaks some.

The fact that you should use the word “jihad” is telling. Is it fair to say that Christians threatening abortion doctors is also a jihad? And how are homosexuals at all degenerate to the community? The current CEO of the most valuable company in the country is gay (Tim Cook) and quite obviously a greater contributor to society than you or your bigot friend

And, I might ask how you think it is fair to say Christians are “bigots” because they don’t want their children to be forced to witness sexual depravity at the park. Stacy wasn’t writing about employment of homosexuals but of depravity in public.

@ Seriously: Christians praying and demonstrating outside of abortion clinics “threatening”? Really? Tim Cook, who just took over a company he didn’t found, a “greater contributor to society”? KInd of early days for that judgment. And because he heads a multi-billion-dollar company, it somehow follows that gay sex is morally acceptable? Seriously, Seriously?

Ryan, your thinking is “unhealthy”. If you think practising a vice that brings a darkened mind, and terriable diseases down upon those who practise it is healthy, you really need a healthy dose of reality son.

Sorry for responding so late, I was in class. I think the problem with that line of thought is that you can’t single homosexuality as the only behavior that has to be justified, you’d have to be able to provide a justification for every behavior. (Making homosexuality the sole behavior in need of justification would be completely arbitrary). That’s unrealistic and too time consuming. Instead, I hope we can agree that behaviors are innocent until proven guilty.

@ Lisa,

I completely agree that death threats are completely unwarranted. However the word “depravity” is a bit much. From Stacy’s blog we learn that “there were two men relaxing at the side of the pool unnaturally close to each other, effeminately rubbing elbows and exchanging doe-eyes” and that ” two of the women, so happy to see a baby boy laughing, embraced and remained standing there rubbing each other’s back in a way that was clearly not just friendly affection.” These are very innocent displays of affection. I could sympathize with Stacy if there were people, gay or straight, vigorously making out or worse as I wouldn’t want young children to see that either, but from what she described these actions would be accepted, even if performed by an unmarried straight couple, without anyone batting an eye. So I think this is a case of bigotry as a double standard is applied. Actions performed by straight couple, even an unmarried one, are acceptable but are “depraved” when performed by a gay couple.

@ DarwinCatholic,

I can understand the Natural Law argument within the context of belief in a creating God, but I don’t share that belief. From my perspective, the function of the genitalia is just an outcome of evolution, and I don’t think that corresponds with any ethical significance. It really would take quite a lot of convincing to change my mind on this issue.

Your comments show some very shallow thinking. How exactly will gay people destroy society? I haven’t heard any horrible news from Canada yet.. And why will straight people need to take the law into their own hands? What would they need protecting from? It sounds like it’s gay people that need to be protected from reactionaries like you. Finally, “every society up till now thought it was an abomination” is a fallacious argument. For instance, most western societies accepted indentured servitude and slavery until relativity recently. Was “every society up till now has done it” a good argument for slavery?

Maybe you have been desensitized, but I would not want to live in her neighborhood so as to expose my children to abhorrent behavior.

First of all, I’m not big on any PDAs. Hand holding, hugging, and peck-type kissing are my limits. Anything beyond that, get a room. As to how desensitised that makes me, I don’t know.

Let’s look at the objective acts here:

1. the gay male couple: elbow rubbing and making eyes.

2. The lesbian couple: a one handed back-rub while watching a child.

I don’t see it as overt, as opposed to subtle or furtive PDAs. I don’t know that my children would have noticed. If an unmarried heterosexual couple had done the same things, I doubt I would have noticed.

And, again, as I said, the more important thing is the scorched earth reaction of Mrs. Trasancos’ haters. After all, she didn’t make her reaction their problem, so she shouldn’t be subject to death threats and other forms of hatred.

In my book it’s depravity. I have very frequently called out people for using potty mouth in front of my children in public. Invariably, they have apologized to me and stopped the activity, and I responded with forgiveness….but we dare not ask this of anyone engaged in a show of homosexual physical affection. If we even muse about it on our blogs we get death threats.

@Philo12, We could have a discussion on the moral basis of other behaviors, but the one at hand is homosexuality. You are asking society to find homosexuality morally acceptable and good. This runs contrary to thousands of years of thought on the subject. If you are asking society to change its mind, please provide the basis on which you have determined homosexuality to be morally acceptable and good.

I think you have a very low standard for what counts as depravity. If I may ask, would you call it depravity if an unmarried heterosexual couple had the nerve to rub elbows? Gasp! Or rub backs? Oh the humanity!

I think that’s actually too high a standard. I don’t have to show that it is good, just point out that no good reason, that is acceptable in a public forum, has been given to think it bad. It isn’t good to wear a blue bracelet or a red bandanna, but neither is it bad to so society allows it. If homosexual behavior does no harm then what reason can be given to ban it? I’m asking society to justify its behavior, and to do that it must give compelling reasons as to how homosexuality is harmful. Though it should be noted that several countries have already allowed gay marriages and are, to the best of my knowledge, suffering no ill effects.

This post is about my friend Stacy receiving death threats for writing her objection to this behavior from the point of view of her Catholicism. It’s not about whether or not homosexuals can rub each others’ backs in public. It’s about whether or not they should be threatening to kill us for verbally expressing objection to it. Where are the blog posts from the gay community speaking out for religious freedom? There won’t be any, because they despise freedom of conscience and glory in license.

Yeah, like Dale, I don’t necessarily agree with the original post (in that I wouldn’t have written it or have considered seeing that in the park all that horrifying) but the hate fest it brought down is really pretty appalling.

The basic personalities of the atheists and Christians involved are a pretty good advertisement for the basic falsity of the beliefs of the former.

Philo12;
Other have given you examples of how homosexuality is harmful and you have rejected said examples. Your continual rejection of evidence does not strengthen your position but instead undermines the view that you are in search of the truth.

Actually, yes it is, Philo. The nihilistic core at the center of too much of contemporary atheism is on full display at Accepting Abundance. With a few honorable exceptions, it’s a feeding frenzy of unadulterated malice.

The bottom line is, I really can’t call any of them hypocrites, can I?

WOW, I’m referring to freedom of conscience. That is, my right to ask someone not to engage in a certain behavior in front of my children at the Arby’s while we’re trying to eat lunch without receiving a death threat.

@Philo12,
I will agree that asking someone to explain homosexual behavior as morally acceptable and good is too high a standard. It would be very difficult.

Wearing a blue bracelet or red bandanna may be morally neutral or not. In the past, certain clothing items were worn for their colors by gang members. Wearing an article of clothing in those cases, i.e. showing your colors, is morally bad.

And so it is with homosexuality. It’s how you “wear” your sex organs that determines if it is morally good or bad. Society and major religions for thousands of years have determined homosexuality is not the proper way to use our bodies.

You are asking society to justify its behavior, but it is homosexuality which needs to proves itself a morally acceptable behavior. I would think its advocates could easily produce a list of reasons it should be accepted. (Monogamous heterosexuals have no problem providing such a list.) If you find it difficult to produce such a list, I advise you to meditate on why it is so.

1. I suppose it’s possible that all the people with a handle on the truth are deeply unpleasant and angry, while most people who have embraced falsehood are not, but if so that doesn’t seem like much of an advertisement for truth, does it?

2. It’s true, I have a bias against threats of violence and verbal abuse in general.

Tito and Stacy, if the “truths” of “Nature and Nature’s God” are no longer “self-evident” in America, then we’re now in tyranny….tyranny that finds its expression in these death threats against Stacy for simply blogging that she wants to take her kids to the park without their having to witness acts of depravity. Anyone who would continue to go after Stacy for what she blogged, knowing that she’s received death threats, would, it appears to me, be okay with tyranny that throws Christians to the lions.

What do you want? I already called the death threats unacceptable. I said the Catholic Church has the right to say whatever and to marry whomever it wants.

@ CatholicLawyer,

I have straight friends that do and have all of those things. I think that’s a better argument against promiscuity since that is usually what leads to those behaviors and afflictions. I would be interested to see a survey comparing men with an equal number of partners. As to why it those behaviors are more common among gay people it might have to do with the scorn and hate leveled at many gay teens that causes them to gravitate towards being an outsider along with there inability to marry. Nevertheless, I’m not defending promiscuity, but a committed gay relationship where both partners are monogamous.

I don’t think it would be difficult at all. I’d just use the same list heterosexual couples use.(With in vitro they can even produce children). Though, as a Christian, you should be uncomfortable going with whatever society has determined to be good and just. Imagine if the early Church had that attitude.

I am seeing some people throw various ideas out there that aren’t completely accurate or looking for a focal point to discuss certain aspects of homosexuality in religion. I just want to point out a few things:

1.) As we continue to discuss these issues, let’s make sure that there is a clear understanding that there are differences in Christian and Catholic beliefs. The author of this blog is Catholic, not Christian. But this is no the point of this blog.

2.) “Jihad” translates into struggle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jihad). The use of the word “Jihad” being referrenced with Islam extremists is more of an all out hatred towards Christianity and not the actual meaning. Therefore, let’s use Jihad in the correct context. That’s not the point of this blog.

3.) In the Bible Leviticus 18: 22 and Lev 20:13 discusses a man laying together with another man is a detesable act, which I believe is correct (although it talks nothing about lifestyle but just the act of sexual intercourse). But in the same instance Jesus sat and dwelt amongst sinners and preached the Gospel so that sinners would change there life and enter into the Kingdom. So who am I to disrespect homosexuals even though I believe that it is a sin. This is still not the point of this blog.

The point of this blog is that no one deserves to have there life threatened, regardless of what they believe. To Stacy, as a Christian, I might not agree with everything you say and do. But I can appreciate and commend you for coming to the aid and wanting to uplift the spirits of a friend who’s life is threatened. God bless you!!!

Offend is a tricky term. I don’t like it, and I don’t think it’s right. Not so long ago I made a major career decision based on my desire not to put my family into San Francisco, and moved to Ohio instead when choosing between two jobs.

At the same time, I recognize that to a great extent we already live in a pagan society. So I’m not shocked.

When I say I wouldn’t have written Stacy’s post, I mean simply that I wouldn’t have written it. Not that I wouldn’t have experienced a mental roll of the eyes and cringe.

TheOneandOnly, I’m not here to uplift Stacy’s spirits. I’m here to show that the “gay rights” community is more interested in “struggle”, as you put it, against Christians than they are in freedom of conscience.

“I have to say, as someone who is not Christian, it’s hard for me to believe Christians are a persecuted people in America. God-willing, maybe one of you one day will even rise up and get to be president of this country – or maybe forty-four in a row. But, that’s my point, is they’ve taken this idea of no establishment as persecution, because they feel entitled, not to equal status, but to greater status.”

Philo, this post is not about anything but us Christians wanting to be able to express our opinions without being threatened with execution. Okay? How many times have I said that now? I wrote the post and I have the ability to stop you from commenting on it. Please stop changing the subject.

To add to what Lisa said. There are laws – we vote for them. We should all be able to vote our convictions. I have repeatedly been told that I should vote inconsistent with my convictions because everyone doesn’t share my religious beliefs. I just find that absurd.

@MatthewJLB:
I’m not sure how you can attribute any deaths to atheism, because I’ve never heard of anyone killing someone over their disbelief in a God(unlike the opposite). Art/Music/etc. are entirely subjective; you can’t pass judment on a piece as if it were a fact, especially not an entire group. Your entire post reads like some bad Fox News propaganda, to be honest.

TheOneandOnly, not to “lift her spirits” but to encourage her in her convictions because, as I wrote, she expressed that she was wondering if she should consider continuing to speak out…because of death threats.

“I’m not sure how you can attribute any deaths to atheism, because I’ve never heard of anyone killing someone over their disbelief in a God(unlike the opposite). Art/Music/etc. are entirely subjective; you can’t pass judment on a piece as if it were a fact, especially not an entire group. Your entire post reads like some bad Fox News propaganda, to be honest.”

Actually some 94 million people in the last century were murdered by communists. A hallmark of the Communist movement was militant atheism. Some 42,000,000 Christians were slaughtered by the Nazis. Contrary to what you have probably learned on atheist websites, Hitler had a deep and abiding hatred for Christianity, which he regarded as a Jewish superstition, in general and Catholicism in particular. At the beginning of the Spanish Civil War over 6500 priests, brothers, nuns and sisters were murdered by militant atheists of the Spanish Left. Forces on the Left engaged in a murderous persecution of the Catholic Church in Mexico in the Twenties which claimed some 30,000 lives. Some 500,000 Catholics were murdered by atheist French Revolutionaries during the French Revolution.

@Philo12,
You seem to be speaking as two persons, one who finds the moral justification for homosexuality difficult and the other who says it isn’t difficult at all. This will make it difficult to have a conversation with as I don’t know which one of you I am speaking with.

You can judge the outcomes of homo and hetero behaviors to be similar, but far more and important differences exist. Another fallacy of this argument is it’s outcome focused and ignores the morality of the means to achieve it. You cannot focus on the results and ignore the basis and the means when attempting to morally justify homosexuality. Borrowing from the heterosexual’s moral justification in basis and means will be an impossibility.

Society has been wrong in behavior in certain epochs. These behaviors have not been universally accepted. But, on the issue of the immorality of homosexual behavior, we find an unusually high universal acceptance across religions and cultures and time. Your job is to prove to these people, billions and billions, why they should accept something they have determined to be morally unacceptable.

Please provide a basis on which homosexuality should be considered morally acceptable and good.

Philo 12, you’re speaking nonsense about me issuing death threats or advocating genocide. What you can’t get in the three pounds of fat and nerve tissue between your ears is: normal people don’t want to see perverts flaunting their disordered affections in public, especially in front of minor children. If they wish to do so, keep it behind four walls.
But if the sons of Sodom keep pushing it, flaunting it, threatening and harming people who dare give a name to the ‘love’ that dares not to speak its name, and getting legal sanction for their disordered passions, then people, if the law will not protect the sexually normal,they, out of the necessity of protecting their loved ones will not put up with this. If you think I’m issuing death threats or cheerleading genocide, you’re living more than a sexual fantasy. Here’s the truth, Philo12. When deviancy forces itself upon decent people, and the law refuses or can’t act, people will do what they have to do to protect themselves. Read your history P12. Normal, law-abiding folks, if they don’t have the law on their side or no law enforcement is available, will always act like this.

Philo12
Your personal experience/knowledge is a false rejoinder and your argument is not based in science. Anecdotal arguments do not obliterate scientifically based conclusions. Please back up your position with science. Your position, as has been evidenced though out this discussion, obfuscates the point. You do not answer others counter-points to your positions instead you make false argument. I expected better from a modern, educated, and sophisticated person who values science and truth such as your self. I shall lower my expectations.

Can we avoid name-calling please? Most of that study didn’t apply to my position for reasons I stated. I’m not defending extreme promiscuity, drug use, and smoking as a moral life style. I’m not arguing that it’s good for someone to have 1000+ sex partners. So the relevant question is, are those diseases a result of the fact that the community is gay or is it a result of the hyper-promiscuity? All I stated is that I would like to see a study where the people being compared had the same number of partners.

My point in saying that I know people that suffer from those afflictions is that they are not limited solely to the gay community, nothing more. I will admit that my hypothesis as to why quite a few gay people lead such a hard lifestyle is speculative.

Perhaps I’m mistaken, but the impression I got from your post is that unless we but laws against sodomy, gay marriage, etc. back on the book that good law abiding people, like yourself?, are going to start a gay witch-hunt to “protect” your families. I ask again, protect them from what?

I challenge the advocates of same-sex marriage and the entire sodomite community to gather themselves in a town exclusive to their perversion and see whether in 100 years they would not be in extinction?

“Man has often lost his way, but modern man has lost his address” Gilbert K. Chesterton

If advocates can go as well then it would be quite easy to keep it populated. We’d beat your challenge. I’ll do my duty and get a girl pregnant to advance the cause of gay rights (that’s a sentence I never expected to say)

But, I’m going to assume you mean a town populated by only gay people. Yeah they would die out barring advances in medical technology, but I guess I don’t see the premise that leads to “therefore being gay is bad” or something similar to that. The same argument could be applied to people that become Lawyers. If everyone were a lawyer then the human race would die out, therefore it’s bad to be a lawyer. It’s complete nonsense.

P12, make an honest effort to read and understand what everybody with a lick of common sense has posted here in the last day or so. You might discover what I (and perhaps some other commentators) want protection from.

@Philo12 you said, “The same argument could be applied to people that become Lawyers. If everyone were a lawyer then the human race would die out, therefore it’s bad to be a lawyer. It’s complete nonsense.”

What? Lawyers in your state are all gays or what? I don’t think so. Being a Lawyer is a carrier option and both male and female can be qualified to be lawyers. You seem to think that Lawyers don’t give birth or are sterile either naturally or artificially. Funny

Philo,
Thank you very much for sound and reasonable arguments. I appreciate rational thought (and I hate unfounded bigotry).

Gadel,
I believe he means that if everyone were lawyers no one would be growing crops, caring for the sick, building infrastructure… Anyway, it was obviously an extreme example intended to point out the fallacy of your statements.

Laws should not be built solely on a single religion’s doctrine in our country. And there have been hundreds of society throughout the world that have recognized gay relationships (this os not a new issue). And, as Philo pointed out, the health issue is consequence of promiscuity, not homosexuality.

Michael, when the gay community shows that it cares anything at all about freedom of conscience for people of faith, and stops smearing and attacking Christians for simply professing what has always been upheld as sacred in America, I’ll take you up on that.

Lisa,
Death threats are inexcusable. However, I’m curious to know what you mean by saying that the gay community needs to show it “cares anything at all about freed of conscience for people of faith…”

I respect your freedom of religion. You can say (excluding threats) and believe in anything you choose to. I don’t want to jump to the wrong conclusion, so I’m hoping that you can explain exactly what you mean.

@Ryan, 9:45 AM: I think you’d find it interesting that 81% of victims of child abuse were male, and only 6% of the accuse priests were pedophiles…so that tells me there were some homosexuals that liked to have sex with adolescent boys. No wonder the Church is focusing on homosexuals, because they are hurting our boys.

The only studies I’ve ever seen that postulate such a link are recognized hate groups like Family Research Council. The title is reserved for organizations that spread lies and unfounded information and encourage bigotry. All of their studies have been debunked.

@Donald. At least that person has multiple perspectives unlike most of the people I’m reading here who are using one book to justify their disdain for an entire group of people they have never met and know nothing about. Despite the fact that I am an atheist, I have many Christian friends and have no problem with sharing a prayer with them or going into their homes with crucifixes on the wall. We all journey this world on different paths and I, for one, am thankful for the differences.

And there have been hundreds of society throughout the world that have recognized gay relationships (this os not a new issue)

Not until the 21st century (The Netherlands) has homosexual licensed “marriage” been legalized.

Stop making up history if you want to make a cogent argument.

recognized hate groups like Family Research Council

Funny that the Family Research Council is considered a “hate group”. The demonization of Christian organizations is already underway by the tyranny of the minority. The next group deemed a “hate group” will no doubt be the Catholic Church.

No Jess I do not think you have multiple perspectives. You look at the world through an atheist prism and assumed that those people whose comments you opposed in this thread had only one book, the Bible. You then thought it would be oh so clever to use the quote of Thomas Aquinas. Your mistake of course was to confuse actual Catholics with the stereotype that you built up in your mind. Our reasons for opposing homosexual conduct and believing in Christ and the teachings of the Catholic Church have 2000 years of faith, study, thought and human struggle behind them. If you are serious about viewing multiple perspectives as a good thing I hope you will explore the vast literature of the Church. A good place to start would be Cardinal Newman’s Apologia Pro Vita Sua.

In the event that homosexuals formed their own exclusive city, Philo12 offers to fornicate with a woman in order to perpetuate the otherwise sterile populace. Naturally this would eventually result in a majority-heterosexual city in time, in spite of a predictably high incidence of homosexual child molestation causing many children a lifetime of disordered sexual impulses. Concern for the welfare of children and mothers would tend to lead increasingly to a moral choice for married parents together with their children in a cohesive natural family. These children would have far greater stability in their lives, would be much less likely to be born HIV positive than the children of fornicating homosexuals, would have the beneficially complementary example and guidance of both mother and father, and obviously can more effectively be protected from pederast victimization. Compared with the plight of children of homosexual fathers who have no close or stable attachment to the mothers or offspring, the value of marriage for women and children would be especially visible.

You mean clerks having to resign from their jobs because there is no protection of conscience or religious freedom?

There is no such thing as “gay rights”. The correct term has always been and will be forever “homosexual license”.

Society and culture is fighting back to take back the word “gay” and return it to its rightful meaning and soon Christians will take back the rainbow and bring it back to its sacred meaning, that is the symbol of hope and life, not of the Culture of Death.

You are mistaken as to Greece Michael. It was not uncommon for some Greeks to engage in pederasty, but the idea of treating this as a marriage would have struck them as farcial. Most Greeks who engaged in pederasty went on to marry and have children. In neither Rome nor Greece was homosexual marriage ever legal. The ancients would have regarded the whole concept as some sort of ribald joke. The wikipedia article you linked to is simply junk from a historical standpoint.

“I think she overreacted to the PDAs involved–I don’t see where there would have been anything to explain, really. But, the avalanche of hate dropped on her for her post is…wow. Totally disproportionate to what she said … I know internet haters aren’t necessarily representative of a cultural subset, but still–it’s the motivated that drive the fights.

Yeah, there’s a culture war all right.”

That about sums it up for me. I would not be terribly surprised, though, if a lot of the hateful comments turned out NOT to be from large numbers of outraged gays but from a few trolls and bullies who get a kick out of all the attention and feel powerful because now this has got everyone outraged and scared.

Frankly, I could see one person with a particularly sick sense of humor and maybe a couple of his friends reading this woman’s post, deciding she’s a bit too much of a prude and thinking it would be just hilarious to make her think she’s under attack. Heck, for all I know, they aren’t even gay, they just want to toss some gasoline on the flames of the culture war and watch it blow up real good. I don’t know; I just offer that as a possibility.

Of course, it goes without saying that death threats of any kind, in any format, must be taken seriously and those who make them held responsible.

Philo, you were unable to state a case showing homosexual behavior to be morally good or acceptable. You feel in your heart accepting homosexual behavior is the right thing to do.

Is your heart large enough for a 3 same sex union? How about 4? 8? If not, why not? How about a 32 year old joining with a 10 year old of the same sex in union? (Let’s supposed the 12 year old was not coerced, completely free will.) If not, why not? How about a parent marrying an offspring of the same sex? If not, why not? You may think I am exaggerating, but there are real cases out there like this.

Well said, Lisa. This is not an argument — this is organised intimidation of Christian opinion. It doesn’t matter WHAT the argument is, although it is revolting to see such vice defend anyway. But that kind of violence needs to be seen for what it is; an internet beating.

“You are wrong about gay marriage in Rome – Nero’s marriage to Sporus is well documented.”

Nero was considered a monster by the ancient writers Michael. His “marriage” to Sporus was one of many examples of outrageous behavior on his part that the writers pointed to to justify the eventual revolt that overthrew Nero. Suetonius supplies the detail that Nero had the boy Sporus castrated before this “marriage”. In spite of what you have doubtless read at sites supporting homosexual marriage this is an example that aids your position not one whit.

Here is the relevant passage from Suetonious’s Life of Nero:

“Besides abusing freeborn boys and seducing married women, he debauched the vestal virgin Rubria. The freedwoman Acte he all but made his lawful wife, after bribing some ex-consuls to perjure themselves by swearing that she was of royal birth. He castrated the boy Sporus and actually tried to make a woman of him; and he married him with all the usual ceremonies, including a dowry and a bridal veil, took him to his house attended by a great throng, and treated him as his wife. And the witty jest that someone made is still current, that it would have been well for the world if Nero’s father Domitius had had that kind of wife. This Sporus, decked out with the finery of the empresses and riding in a litter, he took with him to the assizes and marts of Greece, and later at Rome through the Street of the Images, fondly kissing him from time to time. That he even desired illicit relations with his own mother, and was kept from it by her enemies, who feared that such a help might give the reckless and insolent woman too great influence, was notorious, especially after he added to his concubines a courtesan who was said to look very like Agrippina. Even before that, so they say, whenever he rode in a litter with his mother, he had incestuous relations with her, which were betrayed by the stains on his clothing.

He so prostituted his own chastity that after defiling almost every part of his body, he at last devised a kind of game, in which, covered with the skin of some wild animal, he was let loose from a cage and attacked the private parts of men and women, who were bound to stakes, and when he had sated his mad lust, was dispatched by his freedman Doryphorus; for he was even married to this man in the same way that he himself had married Sporus, going so far as to imitate the cries and lamentations of a maiden being deflowered. I have heard from some men that it was his unshaken conviction that no man was chaste or pure in any part of his body, but that most of them concealed their vices and cleverly drew a veil over them; and that therefore he pardoned all other faults in those who confessed to him their lewdness.”

I just reflected back what you stated in earlier posts. If my statements were disrespectful then so too were yours.

Again you did not counter my position with science. You changed the point. All evidence indicates that homosexual relationships are damaging both physically and mentally to all involved more so than hetrosexual relationships. Sorry but that is what current research indicates.

I’ll preface this by saying that i am not gay, and neither am i a catholic.

The website Reddit (where the supposed death threats come from) is in no way representative of the gay rights community. Therefore, to state that the Gay Rights community has a ‘jihad’ against Stacy Transacos is false, EVEN IF members of Reddit made death threats against her.

It seems to me that this entire situation has blown wildly out of proportion and, as usual, the voices that we hear the loudest are the extreme minorities at either end (both militant theists, and militant non-theists). I would beg everybody to remember that most atheists *aren’t* hateful anti-theists, and most theists *aren’t* hateful anti-atheists. I believe a few people may have allowed their passion for an argument cloud this simple fact.

I have seen a many nasty things (both on this blog and Stacy’s) spoken by both sides, and an unfortunate lack of ‘devils advocate’.

I was originally going to try and counter many of the arguments seen here, however that is clearly being attempted by people on both sides, and now everyone’s voices are getting lost in the din.

I myself am a gay atheist, so I believe if anyone is likely to be ‘offended’ by Stacy’s comments, it would be me.

I am not.

In all honesty, I can understand why she believes what she does, because (like many people) she has raised with certain ideals that she believes to be true, and that she has used as her own moral compass throughout her life. Given those circumstances, it would be difficult for *anyone* to accept that any of those ideals may actually be wrong.

Yes. I apologize, but I did say wrong.

Again, I don’t want to offend, however truth is often in the eye of the beholder, and I believe this is where so much of this friction has arisen. As plainly as I can put it: non-acceptance comes from lack of understanding.

Most theists really don’t understand what it is to be gay. They are aware of what they have been told; that it is bad, that it is immoral, that it is a sin, etc. It is difficult for them to actually place themselves in the position of a gay man or woman. I mean to genuinely empathize.

This is where I can provide my own insight…

I am gay, and I was born gay. This is something I can state in no uncertain terms. Only those that have been beaten, taunted, threatened throughout their childhood can appreciate this. I would not have “chosen” the beatings, and the torment. (And this was before I had ever even “acted upon it”).

It is an immutable part of my being.

I can’t emphasize this enough.

This is of course where the conflict comes into play. We have one group who “knows” being gay is a a sin, and another group who “knows” that it is an unchangeable aspect of their life.

The only possible conflict resolution here is that one or both sides must alter their perception. And this is where it becomes tricky. As a gay man myself, I can’t make myself “less gay”. (It would be like asking any of you Catholic ladies to become “less woman”… obviously can’t be done).

Our only possible hope is to educate, and (hopefully) bring about acceptance. This is, of course, a very slow process, just like any other civil rights movement. (It began long before I was born, and I’m sure it will take many more years).

This is where the frustration and the loud voices come into play.

When we see a blog post like Stacy’s it is a big reminder that we are still perceived as a second-class citizen (i.e. “you don’t have the right to show affection in public”). The misplaced outrage displayed in Stacy’s comments is really not truly directed at Stacy herself (I would hope she will eventually find comfort in that). The outrage is intended for the society and (please forgive my choice of word) the indoctrination that causes people to still flinch at the thought of two people in love (that happen to be of the same sex).

I seem to have rambled on for too long, and this probably won’t even be seen amongst the flotsam and jetsam already floating around the comments.

I just hope people can refrain from using such extreme and provoking words as “bigot” and “jihad”, and perhaps find some way to educate each other instead.

(…And for the love of science: to my fellow atheists, or specifically those few of you attacking their religion, stop it! Educate and inform, by all means. But you know we’re better than that).

Lisa: I’m not sure if you’re making a serious point about comparing Bipolar with Homosexuality, so I’ll assume you are. I won’t entertain your ‘disorder’ comment (since there is obviously no truly scientific backing to that statement), however let me ask you…

Religion aside, if a large faction of people were constantly telling you that being Bipolar is immoral, and you must stop it immediately, and never act on it. Could you? How would you feel about the people making those comments? Can you at least understand why it is hurtful for people to make statements like that without having any comprehension of how you are affected?

FG: Thank you for the irenic response. Though we are obviously going to disagree on a great many things, I genuinely appreciate the civil tone and substance of your contribution here. Your compassion for Stacy Trasancos is not only welcome, it is refreshing.

While I lack the time to engage in a protracted discussion at the moment, I am compelled to quibble with the argument that “[t]he misplaced outrage displayed in Stacy’s comments is really not truly directed at Stacy herself (I would hope she will eventually find comfort in that).”

While there can be merit in what you say with respect to some of the comments (she’s a proxy for horrible experiences in the past), I would sadly conclude that, for most of the hateful responses, it is all too personal and directed at her as a person. In far too many of the comments against her, there is a clear desire to wound, and even flat out destroy her. I have been on the internet regularly for almost fifteen years, and have never seen hatred like that apart from (note the horrible irony) the vile filth from the Phelps cult.

Addendum: Regarding the ‘sanctity of gay marriage’ article, I believe there is a bit of an unfortunate disconnect here between religious marriage (which is sacrosanct, and I would never belittle) and marriage as a government-recognized contract. I agree with you that traditional marriage in the context of the Catholic church is sacred. It is clearly a deep part of your religious canon.

@Michael, I am saying the rationale behind gay marriage could very well be used to justify any other configuration. This is not a slippery slope situation; it is an illustration of the sand the foundation for gay marriage is built upon.

@Philo,1. Having a love filled relationship
2. Providing a home for children
Couldn’t any of the scenarios I mentioned provide this too? Love, like the sexual organs, are gifts. Simply having them does not give license to use them the way we want. Use responsibly, i.e. in a way it was designed to be used.3. Encouraging monogamy
Homosexual proponents often use the arguments that homosexuality has existed since time began, and therefore is morally justified. It’s quite an illogical leap, but it’s what they believe. Couldn’t the same argument apply to polygamy? Why are you picking and choosing what you find moral? Why do you discriminate?

I realize it’s easy to follow your feelings and do what you feel is right, especially in an age which puts great effort in blurring the lines between good and evil and celebrates gray. But, there are absolutes in the universe. There are objective truths. Swim against the tide and the fashions of today and find them. Find out why people of history, wiser than you or me, lauded them.

@Dale Price: With this I agree. There have been very hurtful comments directed towards Stacy, and there is no excusing that. It is my profound belief that Stacy is simply a ‘proxy’ here, and that it is her actions that are the real target of the anger. Passion and anonymity together can cause terrible things to be spoken. Believe me, I have been the target myself before now and it isn’t fun (ironically, it was actually my being gay that caused the hurtful comments to be spoken by extreme theists, so I really can relate with Stacy).

Thanks for making a point to respond to my comment. I hope that there are a few of us on both sides that can go a little way to bridging the seeming chasm between our two sides.

@Dale Price: I just re-read my response, and I realize my words didn’t quite express what I had intended. I don’t mean to say that her actions were so terrible that they deserved such a reaction. I simply meant that it was the long-standing societal cause behind her actions that people are so deeply impassioned about.

Ryan I have sympathy for you, but you keep talking about “being” gay and you take that as a God given identity.. You are confused. Temptations are temptations. That it is it…once we give in to temptation we can justify our behavior– and can become addicted to it just like any other potentially compulsive disorder– people go back to and repeat these behaviors in more and more risky ways– (unless they age out) it repeatedly looking for a higher high– first just wanting to do it privately, then gay bars and gatherings that permit more and more violent and pornographic behavior– look at Folsom new york and tell me it is about two nice homosexuals just wanting to make a nice loving life together. You are duped.
There is a God, and He did not and does not make people sin, People are tempted and people choose sin. That’s where death and death threats and murder come from.
People’s temptations do not define them. A person IS not homosexual, a person is a person with dignity and a chance for eternal love and eternal life.
We all have temptations and inclinations — but we seek wisdom and prudence. Self control is the forgotten virtue. I am old enough to have laughed when Flip Wilson said “the devil made me do it” but we knew then as we know now, that we always have a choice.
Once a person decides to go all in and declare and “act out” their temptations they want to try to justify themselves and get our approval —but it is still an act below human dignity. Homosexual behavior is animalistic and harmful to those who do it, even if all the rest of the world were just to nod and smile– it still hurts. Literally. That is why homosexually active men have problems with anal and rectal bleeding.
You just want to talk about why is it not right for two people who love each other to get married and imply that it is all sweetness and light– it is not as simple and sweet as that. People die of this early, they suffer more than the judgment of others, They suffer the natural consequences of their behavior.
Utilitarian? Reason? Speaking about homosexual behavior and the fruits by which we know it… Insurance companies know that it is risky, but we are not supposed to talk about that.

The slippery slope is not a logical fallacy. (oxymoron?) The idea is that redefining boundaries of socially acceptable sexual behavior would mean that other similar boundaries predicated on the same natural law are also threatened. It has happened before…and I don’t care if any ancient culture “legalized” homosexual unions or not. They also thought it was fine to abandon children.
Friendly gay I ask you: when you knew you were gay when you were but a child, did you know you wanted to do sodomy? or did you just now that you were somehow different and not accepted. What was the impulse to homosexual behavior that you recognized in yourself as a child? did you want to be on top? Did you want to have some man come into you? or were these learned behaviors that helped you when you were (like so many of the rest of us) just looking for love “in all the wrong places”.
I don;t mean to be rude to you, but you line of rationalization is the most difficult to swallow. The “whatever you want to believe” part of of the gay argument has come to children being instigators of these behaviors with their older “lovers” When you see a blog post like Stacy’s and you worry about how you are perceived as a second class citizen, I hope you can begin to wonder what it would mean to be a “first class”citizen. I think being first class has to do with love and responsibility. The narcissistic and self fulfilling ones will prob always be second class… never recognized as role models or ideals.

@Anzlyne: If I may first address the earlier point about the slippery-slope fallacy, I believe this is a valid point. It will always come down to “do no harm”. Two consenting adults can sign a marriage contract and be bound to each other. This, in and of itself, is no different to traditional marriage (and by this, I simply mean a government recognized contract. I by no means wish to contradict religious unions, as I mentioned earlier).

As to the question you raised, thank you for asking. I am happy to answer any such questions in the spirit of us each gaining understanding.

Yes, I knew I was gay as a child, but I knew nothing of the sexual aspect. Much in the same way that many boys want to be in the company of girls, and hold their hands, etc, I felt the same way about other boys. At the time I didn’t know that this wasn’t the ‘norm’, and neither did other children at that age. Intolerance, it seems, comes later in life.

Once I was a little older, and it was clear that boys were bullied for such thoughts/behavior (and by bullied I actually mean severely beaten and hospitalized, believe me), I withdrew. I knew I “wasn’t the same”, and I avoided conflict. Later in school-life it must have become clear to others that I didn’t have interest in girls like other boys of my age, and so began the torment during what really was the worst years of my life.

Later still (at college), I began to meet others like myself (only one or two, but enough to make me realize I wasn’t alone). That said, it still took a couple of years for me to finally shed the shackles of society’s opinion of me, and to accept who I was. All of this occurred before I every had my first sexual experience.

This was a large, ongoing, life-changing period, spanning most of my teens. It clearly wasn’t a ‘phase’ or a ‘temptation’ I could ignore. It was a fundamental part of who I was and always had been.

After leaving college I began a relationship with my current partner of 12 years. We have a regular committed relationship. We are both best friends, and partners in every sense that a husband and wife would be.

As for your question about my sex life, that isn’t something I would particularly like to discuss. That is a private aspect of my life (just like I’m sure it is for yourself). All I can say is that we are a happy, normal couple, who must unfortunately be very careful to choose when and where we hold hands, or show any affection, for fear of retribution, name-calling, or worse.

(On numerous occasions we have had things thrown out of moving vehicles at us. I’m sorry to say that each time this occurred, the vehicle was ‘proudly’ displaying a Jesus fish, or other such fender display of “love”).

This is the only “choice” we must make as gay people. Live a miserable solitary existence, or every day risk abuse at the hands of strangers.

(Regarding my closing lines of my previous comment, by ‘we’ I refer to myself and my partner. I can’t say that I am speaking for all gay people everywhere, although it would surprise me if many haven’t had similar experiences)

Marriage is a sacred union between one man and one woman. “Gay marriage” can never and will never be “equal” to it. Laws claiming they are equal are absolutely invalid. No government has legitimate authority to redefine marriage.

Many on the Left claim that corporations are not “persons”. As a Catholic believer in the dignity of the human person, I would tend to agree. By the same token, “gay marriage” is not and never will be “marriage”.

Having said that, the Left rejects the basic idea that America was founded on. That is, that we are endowed by our Creator with inalienable rights and that these rights are the laws of “Nature and of Nature’s God”…and that if any government becomes “destructive of these ends” then that government should be overturned. There is no such thing, then, as “gay rights”. Rights come from God alone. Not government. Man cannot redefine them legitimately. They are already defined and are very clear in the hearts of those to whom, as the Declaration says, “truths” are “self-evident”. Moral relativists claiming “gays” have “rights” to “marry” will never defend authentic rights because they can’t even recognize them. This is the danger to America and our God-given rights….and it’s because of this danger that I am very actively supporting Rick Santorum, whom the “gay rights” activists despise above all, for President.

@Lisa Graas: Gay marriage is not, nor ever will be, marriage in the biblical sense. When I refer to marriage, I am simply speaking in terms of a lawful contract binding two people who are committed to each other for life. I don’t want to disparage any aspect of any religion, and regarding church weddings, I agree that it is the church’s right to deny a religious ceremony to a gay couple. (Personally I don’t agree with the sentiment, but I agree that it is their right).

By that token, I concur that “gay marriage” is not and never will be “marriage”. (Yay, we have common ground).

I think we will have a difference of opinion regarding the ideas on which America was founded, and that is a natural part of life. People will always disagree with other peoples interpretations of history. When America was founded, it was amid a time of religious and political strife in Europe, and as such the founding fathers demanded that no law should be made “respecting an establishment of religion”, therefore separating the laws of the land from the laws of any given religion.

Regarding equality, we require no more and no less rights than everyone else. We are not asking for “special treatment”. We simply want, for example, to be able to lawfully sit beside our dying partner in hospital; to exchange loving glances in the park without recourse; to spend our own boring lives bickering with our partners in our jointly-owned homes in the same way married couples have since time immemorial.

These *are* the inalienable rights you speak of. Currently, only ‘marriage’ in the eyes of the government confers this full range of rights to individuals, and this is our current problem. By all means, grant us a new word, and make it universally recognized, and we shall run with it.

@Roger Pearse: Please don’t misunderstand, I whole-heartedly condemn the threats against Stacy. This isn’t ‘pseudo-politeness’. As I mentioned in my original comment, it is only the loudest and most outspoken of voices that were heard in the comments leveled against Stacy. They do not represent us as a whole (in the same way I don’t for a moment believe that the voices of the Westboro Baptists represent you).

I simply wanted to raise my own voice to show that we aren’t all a part of that mob, and to show heartfelt compassion towards Stacy. She did not deserve such a backlash against her for what she posted. She made what she thought was a simple observation in line with the ideals and morals she has been taught.

I find it a shame that so many people expended so much anger, when so much more can be accomplished with debate and understanding of each other.

@Lisa Graas: I’m didn’t realize we disagreed on what the rights actually are. As far as I was aware, the only point of contention between us is who conferred them.

I understand that there is conflict within the Catholic religion and homosexuality, however I refer only to equality as human beings. I am not going to disrespect your life or your religion, regardless of any disagreements I may have over any aspects of them. I would just hope that you are able to do the same.

Statistically there is a correlation to a higher rate of all the things listed and homosexual behavior. Just as science correlates lung cancer with smoking, so does it correlate health problems with homosexual behavior. That is science and statistical analysis. You do not have to accept the research but there it is. Pointing to an individual that has lung cancer and never smoked does not invalidate the correlations. It is an anecdotal example and not statistically significant or of importance.

It boils down to the “yuck factor,” and such displays are repugnant to normal people. To give a platform to queers on TAC is generous but they have thousands of their own web sites to spread their filth. Let them wallow in it. Keep TAC free of such scum.

If we disagree on where they come from, we disagree on what they are. If you believe our rights do not come from God, then you disagree with the whole reasoning America gave for separating herself from a tyrant. This is why the tyranny of the Left loves the “gay rights” movement, because it is through such movements that the tyranny of the Left may reign as King George III did.

I’m not ignoring the science. I’m asking if the correlation is due to high levels of promiscuity or if it is due to homosexuality. The only way to resolve that question is a study in which both groups have an equal number of partners. For instance, let’s compare a heterosexual couple that has had only one partner, their SO, with a homosexual couple that has only had one partner as well. If the data isn’t controlling for promiscuity then it doesn’t show what you think it does.

@Joe Green: I have a question, and I genuinely mean no disrespect. I believe you have stated something I can learn from. What exactly do you mean by the “yuck factor”? I know this is often the case, but what specifically brings it about? Is it something as fundamental as considering the sexual aspect of homosexuality?

I didn’t really want to go into this side of the debate, however I believe there is often an ‘exaggerated idea’ of what goes on behind closed doors. Honestly, some of our sex lives can actually be quite boring. Particularly in long-standing committed relationships.

I only ask this question because this point, along with the ‘yuck factor’ is often raised during these debates, however tempers are usually too wild to really discuss it maturely (i.e. Stacy’s blog).

Regarding TAC as a ‘platform’. This is a debate that involves us, and trolls aside, I’m sure we can debate rationally here. I am very grateful to Lisa for allowing us to have a mature and serious discussion here.

@Lisa Graas: It sounds like we perhaps do disagree with the exact reasons behind America declaring its independence, however I’m sure we agree that tyranny and oppression were the overriding factors.

I would hope that you can perhaps see why gay people may have felt oppressed themselves over the years. Less so now than ever before, of course, however we are still frequently belittled and beaten (both verbally and physically). I know many theists these days that are very understanding, and offer nothing but love and compassion for us, however we always know that on the other end of that spectrum are the extremists that would like nothing more than for us to suffer for simply being who we were born to be.

A recent example that warmed my heart was when myself and my partner helped a Baptist friend of mine with a project at her church (a charity fashion show). We were welcomed there without question, despite them knowing our non-belief and our sexuality. I had some great discussions with their members and ministers, and I left with a better understanding of their religion, background and faith.

@Joe Green (2nd comment): From a theistic perspective, that raises an pretty interesting and theological point. How would someone of faith reconcile the idea of being created gay by God?

No need to correct yourself – we vote for both (sometimes the lawmaker, i.e. elections; sometimes the law, i.e. proposition X, Y or Z). Unless you are strictly talking about federal laws. I am not aware of any voting citizens do on strictly federal laws.

@Joe Green: I have a question, and I genuinely mean no disrespect. I believe you have stated something I can learn from. What exactly do you mean by the “yuck factor”? I know this is often the case, but what specifically brings it about? Is it something as fundamental as considering the sexual aspect of homosexuality?

I didn’t really want to go into this side of the debate, however I believe there is often an ‘exaggerated idea’ of what goes on behind closed doors. Honestly, some of our sex lives can actually be quite boring. Particularly in long-standing committed relationships.

I only ask this question because this point, along with the ‘yuck factor’ is often raised during these debates, however tempers are usually too wild to really discuss it maturely (i.e. Stacy’s blog).

Regarding TAC as a ‘platform’. This is a debate that involves us, and trolls aside, I’m sure we can debate rationally here. I am very grateful to Lisa for allowing us to have a mature and serious discussion here.
————————————————————-
Response to “Friendly”:

Perhaps it’s generational, I being on the verge of 70 years old and having been brought up in a “traditional” environment. Back when I was a teen and later a young man, open homosexuality was rarely discussed and if it was it was typically condemned as “abnormal.” My milieu, if you will, was strict. I had a Catholic upbringing and the dangers of sin, both mortal and venial, were well drummed into me. These included homosexuali acts, as well as adultery and fornication,

I married, had 2 children, both of whom are now married and have children of their own. I never knew an openly gay person until about 20 years ago and it was not because he revealed it or made some kind of public announcement, as seems to be vogue now, but because of his mannerisms and the fact that he lived with another man. It was not difficult to deduct. This individual and I actually became friends. I respected his intelligence and competence but never once was his sexuality overtly discussed between us. It was his business and I didn’t need nor did I want to know about it.

In recent years, due to a family situation of which I have no control, I have been in regular social contact with gay people, one of whom is a non-blood relative but in the immediate family. Ten years ago he “came out”, insisting that he was merely acting on his own natural impulses. His mother was devastated at first but later came to accept it. Out of respect for the mother, I also “accepted” it but secretly I can neither condone nor support that type of behavior. I suppose he is what he is. This young man surrounds himself with many homosexual friends, who en masse have been to our house and although they comport themselves well, I cannot help feel uncomfortable in their presence. I do my best to be civil and never have indicated the inner disgust I feel with what I perceive to be abnormal behavior. But now there appears to be a new “normal” in today’s world.

This is the “yuck factor” I referred to. I cannot help feel a sense of repugnance at the sexual aspects of homosexuality. Stripped of that, homosexuals, like anyone else, can be great company and conversationalists, decent people, law-biding and contributing members to society. We are all entitled to our private lives and certain aspects ought to remain private, not be placed on public display.

I’m sorry if you feel offended in any way by my rather strongly worded comments suggesting that you voice your opinions elsewhere. Although my Catholicism has waned over the years – I am now agnostic — I retain the core traditional values I grew up. I suppose I can no more change my attitude than you can change your sexual orientation.

@Joe Green: Thank you Joe for an honest and thought-provoking response. I believe you are right in that it is likely generational. It has only been a short few decades since gay men like myself have been able to walk the streets in (relative) safety, so there certainly wouldn’t have been the same exposure that people encounter today.

This individual and I actually became friends. I respected his intelligence and competence but never once was his sexuality overtly discussed between us. It was his business and I didn’t need nor did I want to know about it.

I believe you hit the nail in the head when you mentioned your good friend: once you strip away the “private” aspect of our lives, you soon realize we’re just as boring as everyone else

This is the “yuck factor” I referred to. I cannot help feel a sense of repugnance at the sexual aspects of homosexuality. Stripped of that, homosexuals, like anyone else, can be great company and conversationalists, decent people, law-biding and contributing members to society.

I guess I do understand your comments on the “yuck factor”. I suppose human nature doesn’t prepare us for drastic change in our environment, and I suppose having lived as a gay man for so many years now, it is easy for me to forget that it is such a dramatic shift in perception to see two men, or two women together. It doesn’t take long to accept it, but I suppose there is still a willful acceptance required.

I’m sorry if you feel offended in any way by my rather strongly worded comments suggesting that you voice your opinions elsewhere.

Don’t worry about offending me. I’m pretty thick skinned, and I’d rather attempt a rational discussion in the “face of adversity”.

I suppose I can no more change my attitude than you can change your sexual orientation.

I think if you step back, you may surprise yourself. It sounds like you have already made a dramatic change in your attitude since your earlier years.

Friendly….I have become more “accepting” in the sense that I cannot live anyone else’s life any more than he/she can live mine.

If God made gays the way they are, then who am I to judge the Maker? The reason I am an agnostic can be summed up by the ancient Roman philosopher Lucretius: “Had God made the world it would not be as frail and faulty as we see.”

Lisa,
I, too, am bipolar. It is part of who I am. You could tell me to stop being bipolar, but I can’t do that. Just like I can’t stop being gay.

However, unlike my bipolar, being gay is not a threat to my life and, despite the uninformed assertions I’ve seen in these posts, it poses no threat to my happiness or health. That is why it isn’t treated as a disorder – the only real arguments against are religious in nature.

Tito,
Why do you think that it’s all about sex and that what I choose to do is high risk? Being gay, for me, at its core, isnt about sex – its about who i fall in love with. But that is beside the point.

Giving equal rights to gays is moral because it is never moral to deny rights to a group of people based an immutable characteristic that causes no one any harm.

You are making nearly as big a mistake as if the US were to get bogged down in a land war in Asia.

The brutes do not believe in objective truth; do not believe Jesus Christ is the Son of God; do not believe that Christ entrusted His authority on Earth to His Church. In short, sexula deviants recognize no authority outside themselves. Sodomites fabricate their “reality” and “truth.” Arguing with degenerates will get you nowhere.

Edward Gibbon said, “I never make the mistake of arguing with people for whose opinions I have no respect.”

Stacy Tracanos brief remarks have generated 1,065 comments in four days. Here we have another 205 comments on remarks referring to the controversy. There is something quite disconcerting about all that.

Michael, homosexuality very well can be a threat to your life if you act on desires and commit homosexual acts. God didn’t invent the condom. Man invented the condom. Man also invented disease when he sinned in the Garden of Eden.

When I say “disorder”, I am not referring to how the medical community defines “disorder”. I am referring to what is “disordered” in men that cause them to be less than the perfect person God calls each of us to strive to be in all aspects, whether physically, mentally, or spiritually. In other words, all of us are “disordered” in some way. None of us is free of disorder. You shouldn’t be offended by my saying homosexuality is disordered. It simply means that it’s the particular condition you have to deal with while my Bipolar Disorder is the particular condition I have to deal with. Cleft palate is a “disorder”….but pride is also “disordered” behavior, as is lust…which is a “disordered desire” that the vast majority of people deal with. To claim that same-sex attraction, a form of lust, is somehow morally neutral or even gives you some special dignity over others, is appalling to me.

Skin color is morally neutral. Skin color is something we are born with that has absolutely nothing to do with how close we are to God. I have to tolerate skin color because it is morally neutral. Cleft palate is, in and of itself, morally neutral, and I have to show understanding and compassion to those who have it. It is the same with same-sex attraction. I have to show understanding for people who have to deal with it, as well as others who deal with Bipolar Disorder when they fail because their wrongs are so often done without any willful intent at all. I appreciate it when people do that for me, when I fail due to my Bipolar Disorder. However, if they promoted my wrongs as being a “positive good”, it would push me away from God who has called me (and all of us) to perfection. If I tell you that same-sex attraction (lust) is something you should act on and even elevate to the level of sanctity (marriage), I would not be doing you any favors. I would be crucifying my Lord and throwing you over to the demons, if I did that. I can’t do that because I love you.

No, Paul pairs homosexuality with paganism, revelry, and a general lack of enlightenment. Through Israel, God’s laws came to be known. How to act morally. Paul maintains that heterosexuality remains a marker for God’s people into New Testament times and for the entire church. Christians are enlightened and understand what the will of God is. In the book of Revelation certain people remain “outside the gates.” Homosexuals are among them.

Art wrote: Stacy Tracanos brief remarks have generated 1,065 comments in four days. Here we have another 205 comments on remarks referring to the controversy. There is something quite disconcerting about all that.
=================================================
What this proves is that despite being a small fraction of the population, homosexuals are well organized and politically powerful beyond their numbers , aided by the sympathies of the leftist mass media which promote their agenda.

This is not to mention the numerous medical issues that homosexuality gives rise to. I’ve recently written to the presiding bishop of the Epsicopal church explaining just that. They had elected a bishop in New Hampshire who was a practicing homosexual. Then they elected the presiding bishop, Schori, who promotes homosexuality as an alternative lifestyle and a God-honoring one. So I wrote her office. I stated quite matter-of-factly that homosexual practive leads to various medical conditions. I never received an answer.

“From my perspective, the function of the genitalia is just an outcome of evolution, and I don’t think that corresponds with any ethical significance. It really would take quite a lot of convincing to change my mind on this issue.”

I’m late so maybe this has been discussed. But it seems that evolutionary theory argues that mutations produce changes that improve survivability (competitive advantage) – not just for the individual but for the species that have those changes. What competitive advantage does genitalia give to the species? One argued is that sexual reproduction allows for greater genetic diversity and increased survivability. Though clearly that has no benefit for homosexul relations.

So genitalia give pleasure. What competitive advantage does that confer? Unclear. Perhaps those that have more genital pleasure are happier and live longer etc. Again this would possibly give longer survivability to anyone who engages in genital pleasure on a routine basis. Though I don’t know if that’s true. I can’t at this point conceive of other reasons.

No, what’s happened is that we’ve acquired this projection in the West: evolution. We apply the concept everywhere. We spin our tales around archeological finds. We interpret everything in light of ‘deep time.’ No. I don’t buy it. It makes far less sense than does simple belief in revelation.

“You could tell me to stop being bipolar, but I can’t do that. Just like I can’t stop being gay.”

A person cannot “stop being bipolar” in the sense that they can simply will the disorder away. No one expects that. However, they can mitigate its effects upon themselves and others in various medical and nonmedical ways, and, perhaps, they can watch for signs that their condition is changing or worsening and adjust their behavior accordingly. They do not simply let the disorder go untreated, unless they want to suffer the consequences. (Lisa, since you have more personal experience in this regard than I do, feel free to correct me if I’m wrong.)

Likewise, I believe that usually (there may be exceptions, but I’d rather not get into them here) a person cannot “stop being gay” in the sense that they can eliminate or reverse a same-sex attraction by willpower alone.

However — and this is very important — the Catholic Church does NOT and never has expected anyone to “stop being gay” in that sense. All She expects is for them to live a chaste life the same as any straight person who is 1) not married, 2) under a vow of celibacy or 3) divorced without having the previous marriage declared invalid (annulment).

All of us are attracted to things that aren’t good for us, or that are good in themselves but if we indulged our own personal attraction would incline to excess. For me it’s food. For others it may be alcohol, gambling or compulsive shopping (things that aren’t harmful in moderation but some people have a problem with). For other’s its harder drugs or tobacco (which can’t really be done in moderation because they are so addictive. And of course, many Christian sites deal with the issue of pornography addiction.

The Christian/Catholic sexual ethic says that sexual pleasure is to be enjoyed in one circumstance only: between a man and woman validly married to one another, in a manner that allows new life to be created if that is biologically possible (although it won’t always be the case). To willfully seek gratification in ANY other fashion is sinful. Yes, that’s pretty darn strict, hard for a lot of people to accept, and pretty hard to live up to. So hard, in fact, that it can really only be done by the grace of God. But, these moral principles exist for our own good, for the good of families and by extension for the good of society, since the consequences of allowing sexual disorders of ANY kind to go uncontrolled should be pretty obvious to any observer of modern society.

What the Church is asking of homosexually attracted people is not all that different from what she asks of a priest or nun, of a divorced person whose former spouse is still living and who is unable or unwilling to obtain an annulment, or of a single person who has decided for some reason that it would not be prudent for them to ever marry (e.g. due to physical or mental disabilities or a demanding vocation incompatible with family life). These people cannot indulge their heterosexual attraction in any sexual way; likewise, the gay or lesbian cannot indulge their attraction in any sexual way. It doesn’t change “who they are,” but it does change how they ACT upon who they are.

I hope this explanation may be helpful. My point is that the Church is simply holding homosexuals to the same standards of chastity as heterosexuals who are not married or who are living apart from their spouses.

Yes, but we’re missing something entirely noteworthy: only recently have a large number of homosexuals existed relative to the remaining population. True, homosexuals always existed. But the amount relative to the population at large was much much smaller. Why the increase? I would argue that homosexuality grows exponentially during decline. It’s in the air we breath.

Elaine, equating homosexuality with a “food addiction” or any other compulsive disorder fails as a comparison given that you use the qualifier “in moderation.” In other words, you are saying it’s OK to eat but not be gluttonous, OK to have a glass of wine but not be alcohol.

So would it be OK for a homosexual or any other unmarried person to engage in sex “in moderation”? Also, confession cleans the slate so why restrict sins to the “deadly seven” and allow them all as long as forgiveness is but a few our fathers and hail marys away?

Some Catholics go to confession every week, apparently having learned nothing from sinning. They get immediate absolution, get out of the booth feeling “clean” and then go back to doing the same old sinful things. In a week they’re back in the box unloading on the priest, who has heard it all before and mumbles more bromides and hands out penance to perform, typically a light “sentence” that takes a few minutes to complete.

I must reiterate, something’s happening. Not only has homosexuality come to be seen as normal, but the number of homosexuals relative to the remaining population has increased enormously. The number of people claiming this identity or gthese experiences has grown unbelievably in teh past few decades.

During the decline of Sodom and Gomorrah, corruption was widespread. In the story we learn that homosexuality was among them. You can usually see that that’s one of the last things to “come out” near the end. It’s a sign that you are already in decline. So these people were banging on the door, wanting the angels. They wanted to have relations with the angles, the messengers who came to visit, to bring God’s people out of the area before destruction. They demanded that they be given the angels whom they supposed were men. Not victims, but victimizers, these sodomist rapists were banging down the door in rage. They were going to commit gang rape. So we find that during decline, sexual sin and finally homosexual sin becomes accepted, rampant, and finally problematic.

And as I said, we must consider the practical implications of this: to be in decline means to be spent, done. We are not looking at births but deaths. The death rate outpaces the birht rate. Babies are not being born. Who’s paying for our economy? Where are communities going to be replenished and revitalized? Then there are the medical problems as I said. The things people get. The conditions that render people ill and in need of medical help down the road. We’re not thinking about these things. Because we’re not thinking at all. We don’t care. And that’s of course part of being in decline.

“Tito,
Why do you think that it’s all about sex and that what I choose to do is high risk? Being gay, for me, at its core, isnt about sex – its about who i fall in love with. But that is beside the point.

Giving equal rights to gays is moral because it is never moral to deny rights to a group of people based an immutable characteristic that causes no one any harm.”

Michael,
1. The desire for civilized, considerate public behavior in a park where innocent children play (while they still can be innocent of what curricula will present to them ) tilted this wheel. Good manners such as described by Joe Green of his friend keep dignity in a society. Many don’t want to know about matters that are/should be private.

2. If it is strictly for gain of financial benefits and hospital visits, then why do you
call these moral issues?

3. Look outside the ‘group of sexually oriented and defined’ for other unmarried people who manage to be part of society without agendas for exclusive treatment.

Friendly,
“@Joe Green (2nd comment): From a theistic perspective, that raises an pretty interesting and theological point. How would someone of faith reconcile the idea of being created gay by God?”
First, I never saw that word (as you use it) in the Bible, which is inspired by God, our Creator. – but I recommend reading it with your question of reconciling your state in life in mind. There are so many kinds of people in there, with their lives laid bare, also. Through them, He teaches the whys about strengths and weaknesses, order and disorder, good and bad, trust and mistrust, happiness and misery, success and failure, selfishness and selflessness, blessings and curses, and on to eternity. If you were to do any reading, you might review the Ten Commandments given to Moses.

To be in delcine means to exist at a time when things are “torn down.” As it says in Ecclesiastes, there is a time for everything, a time to build and a time to tear down…. This is what I’m getting at. We have a much wider problem. We live in a time of decline. This means we are life-denying. We are done. Christianity breathes newness and life into things. This is why the faith is the only answer, and the last best hope not only of our country but of the world.

Quite interestingly, no one’s mentioned the rather plain fact that homosexuality is unsanitary. Or that it defies commonsense. Parts of the body have functions. Children take time to learn this. Adults usually know.

Joe, perhaps the 5th paragraph of my post was, in retrospect, off topic and I should have left it out. I meant simply to point out that everyone struggles with some kind of temptation or inclination that they cannot morally indulge as they would like, and same-sex attraction is one of many such inclinations.

“So would it be OK for a homosexual or any other unmarried person to engage in sex “in moderation”?

No, it wouldn’t, because “moderation” in relation to sex means using it only for its intended purpose in (heterosexual) marriage. I’m thinking more in terms of Aristotle’s concept of moderation: not simply a middle ground or halfway point in terms of quantity or between excess and deprivation, but doing something at the right time, in the right place, for the right reason. If you are never in a situation where you can meet the conditions of right time, right place and right reason for doing something, then, “moderation” would require that you not do it at all.

As for confession being a convienient way to clean the slate… well, for me and many other Catholics it ain’t quite that easy. For me going to confession ranks about comparably on the discomfort/embarassment/inconvienience scale with having my teeth cleaned or having the oil changed on my car (because they might discover you need something replaced or some service that adds to the bill). I do it regularly mainly because the longer I put it off, the harder it gets. I have to admit that personally, I’d like to see priests put more thought into the penances they assign and maybe make them a little more demanding. Of course, this is difficult to do if they are talking to complete strangers.

Yes, it’s cool to be Catholic and get a clean slate every week, or even every day, as some do, struggling with addictions of one kind or another, staggering under the weight of them. Thank God for His mercy in the sacrament.

And as for penances, let us abandon the notion that they ought to be tougher or something. Penance is not punishment. Once I questioned a confessor who assigned me what I thought to be rather a light penance. I could hear him sigh and I suppose he rolled his eyes and he asked “Well, how much is enough? How many Hail Marys will make up for your sins against Almighty God?” I got the point.

Elaine Krewer said: “Likewise, I believe that usually (there may be exceptions, but I’d rather not get into them here) a person cannot “stop being gay” in the sense that they can eliminate or reverse a same-sex attraction by willpower alone.

However — and this is very important — the Catholic Church does NOT and never has expected anyone to “stop being gay” in that sense. All She expects is for them to live a chaste life the same as any straight person who is 1) not married, 2) under a vow of celibacy or 3) divorced without having the previous marriage declared invalid (annulment).”

I do understand your point here, and I’m aware of the dogma regarding chastity, however it is prudent to point out (from my perspective, and with no disrespect intended), that I do not recognize the Catholic church and its dogma. Please understand that not everyone is born into a Catholic/Christian household. Different strokes.

Consider this comparison: Suppose you are told that not covering your head is sinful according to a particular mosque’s interpretation of Sharia Law, and that their God states that you may still get into heaven by wearing a Hijab, or other such head covering… well this isn’t going to mean anything to you since you don’t recognize Sharia Law.

Again, the last thing I wish to do is offend. I am simply attempting to explain the situation from my point of view.

Joe Green said:“What this proves is that despite being a small fraction of the population, homosexuals are well organized and politically powerful beyond their numbers , aided by the sympathies of the leftist mass media which promote their agenda.”

Might I suggest a slightly alternative view? I agree that some homosexuals are organized, just as any other likeminded group will naturally organise into social groups (e.g. websites like this). We are also likely more impassioned (and therefore ‘louder’) during situations like this not because of some ‘agenda’ as such, but simply because this is a civil rights issue that directly affect our lives and our safety (and the safety of our loved ones), whereas by some it is seen as “just words” to those that seek to deny gay people their rights.

To compare this to a civil rights issue is absurd. They don’t belong in the same category. Civil rights has to do with protecting people who are denied rights because of race, nationality, disability or some other status that has nothing to do with actions. It is a status that one possesses. Homosexual practice is on a different order. To consider that a civil rights issue would make no sense.

Friendly Gay, thanks for taking the time to debate this issue in a civil manner. Obviously not everyone is Catholic, and not all Catholics will follow Church teaching. My point is simply that the Church is not placing a uniquely discriminatory burden upon gays that is placed upon no one else, because gays/lesbians are in the same boat as straight persons who cannot marry.

As far as protecting the rights of same-sex couples with regard to inheritance, hospital visitation, insurance coverage, healthcare power of attorney, etc., I don’t know that this necessarily requires a wholesale redefinition or paradigm shift in the meaning of civil marriage. Perhaps there simply ought to exist a legal means by which anyone can designate a person of their choice as their legal next of kin, if they wish to choose someone other than the person who legally fills that role by default (e.g. an adult child instead of a spouse, a same- or opposite-sex partner instead of a parent or sibling). Many of these issues seem to me, to be not so much about marriage as they are simply about who is recognized as the next of kin.

Elaine Krewer said: As far as protecting the rights of same-sex couples with regard to inheritance, hospital visitation, insurance coverage, healthcare power of attorney, etc., I don’t know that this necessarily requires a wholesale redefinition or paradigm shift in the meaning of civil marriage. Perhaps there simply ought to exist a legal means by which anyone can designate a person of their choice as their legal next of kin, if they wish to choose someone other than the person who legally fills that role by default (e.g. an adult child instead of a spouse, a same- or opposite-sex partner instead of a parent or sibling). Many of these issues seem to me, to be not so much about marriage as they are simply about who is recognized as the next of kin.

I believe this I can agree with, in part. When I say ‘in part’, this is more due to the complexities of legal language. If not for that then I would be in full agreement with you.

There is perhaps a little more involved than simple kinship, that unless you are directly affected by it, probably wouldn’t occur to most people. One example is immigration. There are many many families being torn apart due to non-recognition of bi-national same-sex couples. It is really quite heart-breaking to hear of partners that have been together for many years being forcibly separated by immigration law because of something like a work-visa expiring.

I think it is important to note (as I have mentioned earlier) that in no way, and in no uncertain terms, would I wish for anything to be taken away from you with regards to marriage. Marriage is a sacrosanct union between a man and a woman in the eyes of your Lord. And I respect that profoundly.

On the other hand, the term ‘marriage’ is used in legal language as a general term throughout the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and throughout law (e.g. tax law, immigration law, etc). My belief is, a redefinition of “marriage” is desired because it is the simplest way to ensure that committed long-term same-sex partners are not denied the same rights and privileges as their heterosexual counterparts.

In other countries (such as England) this has been accomplished by having separate ‘civil unions’/’civil partnerships’, which does not take anything away from marriage, but provides equal rights to all partnerships. Personally I believe this to be a perfectly fair compromise, and it appears to work well.

I’m not sure how much of this was previously unknown to you, or how much you were already aware of, so I apologize if I am being a little redundant. I suppose my overriding point is that the ‘gay agenda’ (at least from my perspective) is more about preventing and ending misery, and we have no desire to disrespect or erode the rights and religion of anyone else.

pat said:To compare this to a civil rights issue is absurd. They don’t belong in the same category. Civil rights has to do with protecting people who are denied rights because of race, nationality, disability or some other status that has nothing to do with actions. It is a status that one possesses. Homosexual practice is on a different order. To consider that a civil rights issue would make no sense.

At the risk of sounding contentious, I believe it is worth pointing out that opponents of any civil rights movement have shared this opinion. The late Strom Thurmond (you may remember him as being a strong opponent to the Civil Rights Act) would frequently refer to the movement as: “The so-called Civil Rights movement”.

I don’t mean to totally contradict what you are saying, I agree this is a different situation. But then consider that, at that time, the issue of racial equality was seen as very different to that of sexual equality. Now that people are realizing that sexuality is as unchangable as sex or race, I believe it is natural for people to begin to make these comparisons when it comes down to equality.

That said, unlike the other civil rights issues, voting rights (i.e. suffrage) do not come into play here, and that is one point that really does separate this issue.

—

I’d also like to put one thing out there, as an example, for those referring to homosexual ‘actions’. (And no, I still refuse to enter into a debate about sex. This, to me, is still a private affair).

Alan Turing. This was a man that worked for the British Government as a ‘code-breaker’, and he devised the techniques used to decrypt the German codes, providing a massive intelligence advantage for the Military. This is the man who, arguably, won the 2nd World War.

10 years later he is arrested and convicted for daring to have a relationship with another man (which was illegal at the time in the UK). This was no ‘sexual deviant’. This was a soft-spoken, shy and often nervous man who simply happened to be gay.

Upon being convicted, he was stripped of his security clearance and offered the choice of imprisonment, or ‘chemical castration’ (i.e. a hormone treatment). He chose the latter.

(The British government has since posthumously apologized to Turing for his prosecution and appalling treatment)

This is only one example of the kind of treatment that has made gay civil-rights movement what it is today. Worldwide, countless more have been beaten, murdered, imprisoned, disowned, abused; simply because they have an innate desire for companionship of a slightly different kind.

I only point this out because you may not necessarily consider the reasons why we may refer to this as a ‘civil rights movement’, and be so passionate about obtaining equal rights. We have seen and experienced the horrors of the alternative.

Regarding “. . . preventing and ending misery, . . .” This kind of “hits close to home” for me as I mourn and weep in this “vail of tears”, as it were. I suggest repentence, confession, penance, amendment of life, and through good works glorifying God Almighty.

Without God’s Grace, the world is a horrid place.

Re: The “term ‘marriage’ is used in legal language as a general term throughout the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, . . . ” I read the Bill of Rights and skimmed the US Constitution. The word “marriage” is found therein exactly zero times.

T. Shaw said:I read the Bill of Rights and skimmed the US Constitution. The word “marriage” is found therein exactly zero times.

My apologies, you are of course correct. While reviewing my comments before posting I had edited that sentence because my wording was unclear, but I was clearly a little hasty, and I managed to mangle the meaning altogether.

Originally, I had written something akin to: “On the other hand, the term ‘marriage’ is used in legal language as a general term, just as the word ‘citizen’ is used throughout the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and throughout law (e.g. tax law, immigration law, etc).”

As you can see, there was no real need to reference the Constitution or Bill of Rights at all. I should have removed those during my initial edit.

Friendly, you’re doing a valiant job, but ultimately futile in the face of those who rely on scripture and dogmatic church teachings. You’ll never win the battle against believers. As for agnostics like me, I accept you for what you are and wish you well.

“We need to remember that tolerance is not a Christian virtue. Charity, justice, mercy, prudence, honesty — these are Christian virtues. And obviously, in a diverse community, tolerance is an important working principle. But it’s never an end in itself. In fact, tolerating grave evil within a society is itself a form of serious evil.” – Archbishop Chaput

@Joe Green: I don’t really see it as a battle, but I do understand your point. My feeling is that there is a lot of misunderstanding between our two sides, and I believe a little knowledge, insight and empathy (from both sides of the debate) can go a long way towards fostering a little more understanding of each others point of view. Debates are more fun when you can have opposing sides talking rationally and maturely with each other.

I understand the conflict between Catholic/Christian (and even Islamic) teachings and homosexuality, and I know that even if I were the most exemplary wordsmith I could never undo those teachings (nor would I want to).

What I feel I can do is give a little insight into an *actual* gay man’s life, and hopefully allow people to realize that we’re not here to hurt the church in any way, or to bring about any kind of destruction. And although I come from a non-believing background and as such do not recognize the criticisms and ‘sinfulness’ leveled against me (and implications of being “grave evil”), I do have an understanding of where these comments come from, and why they feel so ‘right’ to those who speak them.

Perhaps for the few, my words can ‘un-demonize’ homosexuality and make those few realize that although we may be a little different, and although certain religion’s teachings may condemn us for those differences, we are not intent on causing any harm.

(…and if I’m honest, we can be as dull and ordinary as anyone else)

Thanks again though for your nice comments. They are very much appreciated.

From a Christian perspective, and the primary source of authority for me is the Bible, homosexual acts are sinful and have always been. Israel was given God’s law. In the New Testamnet, St. Paul continues to pair homosexual acts with paganism, revelry, and the darkened mind. Heterosexual acts within marriage or celibacy are the only alternatives in the Christian path. The Bible never spoke against people of differing nationalities, races, abilities, etc. It always spoke against homosexual acts.

@pat: I understand. I know this is why there is such conflict, and why there is no way to reconcile your teachings with full acceptance of homosexuality. Hopefully you have gathered that I am neither a pagan nor a ‘reveler’. I am, however, a non-believer which naturally puts me at further odds with your belief.

@Everyone: I know the thread is winding down, and this probably won’t be seen by too many people, however I have one final point to make:

Please, everyone, and on this I truly implore you… please, for the love of everything you hold dear, please do not cast out a member of your own family if it turns out that they must make the bold and fearful step to inform you of their homosexuality. Please show compassion and mercy, even if you cannot fully support them. You may never understand the terror of ‘coming out’, and I have seen too many people broken by hateful words from their own families to allow this to go unspoken.

I know this may not happen to any of you, but if it does it will probably hurt. But please understand that you will be standing in front of a scared individual, so fearful of rejection that to be cast out of their own loving family could bring upon them more hurt and despair than you could ever feel or imagine yourself.

These words may mean very little to you now, but should you ever find yourself in this situation please take a moment to reflect on what I have said here. You could be surprised by the love and respect that could be bestowed upon you by simply not over-reacting.

As for what to do afterwards, you are never alone. Countless people will have been in your position, and the internet is filled with people of belief like yourself that can perhaps impart words of comfort and advise.

I thank you all for allowing me to have a calm debate here on TAC. It has been enlightening.

We have to remember why homosexuality was condemned in the law. God created us to marry and hopefully beget children. That was a part of his plan for creation. People went astray. When Abraham was called out and the nation of Israel formed, the law was given. This brings people back. It should, anyway. So in light of the Scriptures, we see homosexuality as sin. Then we look at the created order and we think of how it makes sense, given how we are biologically, and that humanity continues through propogation. It makes perfect sense that homosexuality would be condemned, whether or not people may have that inclination in some instances. We are not designed for homosexual acts. Homosexuality then, is an oxymoron.

Friendly Gay, yes I udnerstand what you say, and have felt that way and so acted toward them. What I still believe and know is that the Bible tells us where we came from, why we’re here, and where we may go based upon the course we take; our receptivity to God’s grace. Christ calls us home BECAUSE we are prodigal.

“We need to remember that tolerance is not a Christian virtue. Charity, justice, mercy, prudence, honesty — these are Christian virtues. And obviously, in a diverse community, tolerance is an important working principle. But it’s never an end in itself. In fact, tolerating grave evil within a society is itself a form of serious evil.” – Archbishop Chaput

I have a real question. Homosexuality, as a sin an abomination, is mentioned in Leviticus. That book, however, also says:
– disrespect of parents should be punishable by death
– sleeping with a woman during her period should make both parties outcasts
– don’t eat pork
– shellfish are an abomination

So my question is, why are some of the verses ignored and others so important?

Michael, because in Christ the climax and fulfillment came. But certain basic things go unchanged. As Christ would say, not so was it in the beginning…. It is a call back to the basics. Those things don’t change. One man and one woman from the beginning. Love God (from the beginning). Love neighbor as self, as it was in the beginning. And so on. Such things are evergreen.